Unlimited Spadeworks

Shewchuk, please answer these question about your graphic: If your goal is scientific accuracy, why does your graphic consistently choose metrics, baselines, and visual framing known to downplay or obscure well-established climate trends? On hurricanes (top-left panel): -Why did you plot total global hurricane counts rather than intensity (Category 3–5), which is the metric climate science expects to change with warming? -How do you account for improved satellite detection since the 1970s, which artificially inflates earlier undercounts? -Why does your graph exclude Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE), a standard metric used by NOAA and the IPCC? -Can you explain why you used a simple linear trendline on highly variable data without showing uncertainty or statistical significance? -Are you aware that the IPCC reports low confidence in long-term trends in total cyclone counts but higher confidence in increasing intensity and rainfall? Why is that omitted? On tornadoes (top-right panel): -Why did you use EF2+ tornado counts starting in 1950, when reporting practices and radar technology changed dramatically (especially post-1990 Doppler radar)? -How do you correct for non-climatic inhomogeneities in the tornado record that NOAA explicitly warns about? -Why not show normalized or environment-based metrics (e.g., convective available potential energy, shear trends) instead of raw counts? -Can you point to any major scientific body that uses this dataset to claim tornado risk is decreasing? On wildfires (bottom-left panel): -Why are you presenting global burned area without clarifying that the decline is largely due to agricultural expansion and land management, not climate effects? -Why omit data showing that fire weather conditions (heat, drought, vapor pressure deficit) have increased significantly? -Why not show regional trends, such as the well-documented increase in extreme fires in places like western North America or Australia? -Do you agree that burned area ≠ fire severity or ecological impact? If so, why present it as evidence of “less extreme weather”? On disaster deaths (bottom-right panel): -Why are you using raw death totals rather than deaths per capita, given global population growth? -Why omit the role of improved infrastructure, forecasting, and disaster response, which are the primary drivers of reduced mortality? -Are you suggesting that fewer deaths means hazards are decreasing, or just that humans are better at surviving them? -Why include 2020–2021 as partial data points, which visually exaggerate the decline? On CO₂ comparison (across panels): -What is the scientific justification for visually comparing CO₂ (a smooth upward curve) with highly variable hazard data without any causal analysis? -Why do you imply a relationship using dual-axis graphs, a technique widely criticized for creating misleading visual correlations? -Can you provide a peer-reviewed attribution study showing that rising CO₂ should reduce these hazards? On selective omission: Why does your meme omit: -Heatwaves (one of the most robustly increasing extremes)? -Extreme rainfall and flooding intensity? -Marine heatwaves? -How did you decide which indicators to include versus exclude? On methodology and transparency Can you provide: -The full datasets used (not just sources)? -The code or method used to generate the graphs? -Any uncertainty ranges or statistical tests? -Why are these figures presented without error bars, confidence intervals, or methodological caveats?

The same way climate alarmists work. Normal scientist: Here is a timeseries of tornado data, it shows tornadoes are not getting worse Alarmist: Here is a statistical analysis that tortures the data until we find some variable that IS changing so we can be scared of it

Denying the Nakba is as disgusting as denying the Holocaust.

150,000 dead, 14 million displaced: The story of Sudan’s war An estimated 150,000 people have been killed and more than 14 million displaced. Sudan’s current war has become one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters, with 2 rival factions, both accused of widespread atrocities, fighting for control of the country. The conflict has just entered its 4th year. It began in April 2023 when a fragile power-sharing arrangement between the Sudanese Armed Forces led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces commanded by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo collapsed into open warfare. What began as a struggle between 2 former allies has devastated the country. The 2 sides had jointly helped remove former ruler Omar al-Bashir in 2019 and later shared power after a military takeover in 2021. But tensions deepened over plans to merge the RSF into the regular army, command structures, and control of Sudan’s political transition, eventually erupting into war in the capital Khartoum. The conflict has since spread across Darfur, Kordofan and central Sudan. Cities, hospitals, markets and infrastructure have been destroyed, while famine and acute hunger have spread across several regions. Both factions have been accused by rights groups of ethnic killings, rape, looting, indiscriminate attacks and blocking aid. Diplomatically, neither side offers a clean option. The RSF, rooted in the Janjaweed militias tied to past Darfur atrocities, has faced severe accusations of massacres and ethnic killings. The SAF has also been accused of strikes on civilian areas and other abuses. Some Western governments are seen as more open to the RSF, while the SAF faces scrutiny over Islamist influence, Muslim Brotherhood links and Iranian IRGC support. Bottom line, neither side are heroes. And there is no end in sight.

ANDY NGO UPDATE: Amazing new footage emerges from a lawsuit showing Andy Ngo laughing as Patriot Prayer members plan an attack on patrons of a local bar.

Patriot passport unlocked. 🦅 Limited edition. Stamped for America 250. 🇺🇸

Lindsey Graham says they are going introduce legislation that’s going to authorize 400 million dollars to be spent on building the ballroom: We pay for it by offsetting it with customs fees. The sooner we get the ballroom built, the better it is for the country.

Bill Clinton: “The Palestinians were offered a state. They refused. A state wasn't their goal. Killing Jews was." This must be shared every single day.